In addition to having a supposed gap of 0.5 second between each compound, they promise that these tyres are going to be 'revolutionary', and will necessitate more pitstops and improve the chances to overtake.

I love watching how teams and drivers have to manage tyres in order to maximise their strategies, but at points last year tyre management was too dominant a factor, and that is wrong in my opinion. Let's hope that's not the case this year.

They're also givingthe hard compound an orange sidewall "to help out the audiences who struggled to tell the difference on TV between the hard and medium tyres."

I've posted about this before but can't find the thread (it might have been in the old forum), but I've always thought it'd be far better if, rather than having a different colour for each compound, they just had one colour for the harder tyre available and one for the softer tyre available. There's only ever going to a maximum of two available at a given race, so why all the colours?

They want to level the field, good, but sooner or later it will end up the same as in 2011 and 2012. By the end of the season every team will know exactly how to handle the tyres and we will see only mandatory one pit stop strategies. I would like to be proven wrong though .

Hopefully we will have more pitstops. There should not be more than a couple of races where it is possible to run very hard on twp sets of tires for the entire race and last year we had many, many less stops even at the start of the year than in 2011.

They want to level the field, good, but sooner or later it will end up the same as in 2011 and 2012. By the end of the season every team will know exactly how to handle the tyres and we will see only mandatory one pit stop strategies. I would like to be proven wrong though .

You are 100% correct, this is what Hembry said:

Quote:

"Through accumulating more information with each Grand Prix last year, the teams eventually fully understood the tyres, after a spectacular start with seven winners from the first seven races. The result at the end of the year was races with less competition and sometimes only one pit stop.

"This phenomenon was also observed in 2011, disappointing many fans and prompting some of the teams to ask us to continue developing our tyres further this year, in order to provide a fresh challenge. Our 2013 range of tyres mixes up the cards once more to help overtaking and ensure two to three pit stops per race."

But Pirelli designed the new tires just because the racing got less exciting later in the season. So we should see less boring races for the entire 2013 season. The first 7 races of 2012 made it one of the best seasons in the history of Formula One, it's possible 2013 may be even better. This is one huge reason to eagerly anticipate 2013.

booooriiiing, teams/drivers are going to have to put more effort into going slower than going faster once again

I wonder how much of a quali lap they will be able to do without the tyres going off, i reckon half the lap

Not going to happen. here's an excerpt from an article about the new tires.

Quote:

Pirelli presented its 2013 Formula 1 tyre range on Wednesday, with the Italian manufacturer holding a pre-season press conference in Milan. The new construction process is aimed at producing 'at least two pit stops per race' and creating a minimum performance gap of half a second between each compound.

Described as a 'completely revolutionised' P Zero range, which again includes six compounds, the new rubber is softer in a bid to increase overall performance as well as thermal degradation.The heat created will also be spread more evenly over the tyre face this season, therefore reducing blisters and inconsistent wear rates.

In addition, the company has made significant changes to its Hard tyre, which is now banded in orange instead of silver. Its performance level is closer to last year's Medium tyre to reduce the possibility of one-stop race strategies, an aspect which Pirelli Motorsport Director Paul Hembery has been eager to influence in 2013.

creating a minimum performance gap of half a second between each compound ... We are not going to see where in some races (happened a couple of times in 2012) there was basically no difference in lap times between the compounds.

the new rubber is softer in a bid to increase overall performance as well as thermal degradation. The heat created will also be spread more evenly over the tyre face this season, therefore reducing blisters and inconsistent wear rates ... The tires will be more consistent and the teams will have a very good idea when they require changing. The teams will be able to charge harder, and ask the drivers to pace themselves less because they will be forced to make at least two pit stops, and the tires will have increased performance.

Michael_f1 wrote:

Well Blinky, I really do want that to happen .

These tires are designed in this way because Pirelli and the FIA have every intention of having each race an uncertain one, such as we witnessed in the first 7 races of 2012.

This is good news. I've always said that I've got no problems with fast degrading tires as long as they are quick. Speed is what keeps F1 at the pinnacle of motorsport, not bulletproof tires. That's easy to make. Even the tires on my Kia can last an entire F1 race easily.

This is not good news. I don't want to watch drivers crawling round the circuit trying to protect the tyres. I think one of the best race weekends we had was in Austin, purely because the compounds were 'too' hard. It allowed drivers to push on tyres with little grip, which made the whole weekend absolutely fascinating. It was a complete contrast to Monaco for example, where everyone had to be super conservative throughout the race. The pace was so slow it was quite frankly difficult to watch.

Softer, more unpredictable tyres are not what the sport needs, in my opinion. Its at a point now where Pirelli are having too much of an influence on overrall performance. Who wants to see cars trundling around a second off their ultimate pace? Not going for that overtake because the dirty air creates turbulence and destroys the tyres because they are so soft?

I hope Pirelli prove me wrong, but a lot of the races last year felt too much like I was watching a show, rather than a competitive sport. It didn't feel right to me.

I've posted about this before but can't find the thread (it might have been in the old forum), but I've always thought it'd be far better if, rather than having a different colour for each compound, they just had one colour for the harder tyre available and one for the softer tyre available. There's only ever going to a maximum of two available at a given race, so why all the colours?

I've posted about this before but can't find the thread (it might have been in the old forum), but I've always thought it'd be far better if, rather than having a different colour for each compound, they just had one colour for the harder tyre available and one for the softer tyre available. There's only ever going to a maximum of two available at a given race, so why all the colours?

I agree with this!

To elaborate, us anoraks are going to know which two of the four compounds are taken to a race because we're the anoraks. There's no point confusing what need only be a binary situation for everyone else.

Chess sets don't come with four sets of pieces - a black set and white set to use, and then a green set and an orange set to keep in the box to represent the people who aren't playing - so why do Pirelli feel this system is necessary with F1 tyres?

If the hard tyre in one race becomes the soft in the next, this could lead to more confusion then we seem to have now, and they would have to produce specific batches(would they not?)

(race with soft and medium, the medium is the 'hard'. Race with medium and hard, that same tyre is then the soft??)

I get your point. I think it is valid, but I'd question how important that info is. For the here-and-now situation of a race, I think I'd rather just know whether they're on the soft or hard. Knowing how that info relates to other races is secondary in my opinion. Additionally, a 'hard' in Canada might behave identically to a 'medium' in Valencia (random races chosen!)

If the hard tyre in one race becomes the soft in the next, this could lead to more confusion then we seem to have now, and they would have to produce specific batches(would they not?)

(race with soft and medium, the medium is the 'hard'. Race with medium and hard, that same tyre is then the soft??)

I get your point. I think it is valid, but I'd question how important that info is. For the here-and-now situation of a race, I think I'd rather just know whether they're on the soft or hard. Knowing how that info relates to other races is secondary in my opinion. Additionally, a 'hard' in Canada might behave identically to a 'medium' in Valencia (random races chosen!)

Bridgestone had the right setup, in my extremely humble opinion.

I would argue . If I recall correctly (but I may be mistaken), Bridgestone also had few different compounds and they nominate which compounds would be used on given race. For us it was just "options" and "primes" but the harder/softer compound could be different on different tracks. Maybe we did not see any difference but it was there and because it was not so obvious nobody really cared. Also, with Bridgestone "bulletproof" tyres (especially in 2010) it really was not that much of an issue but the Pirellis are so much different. We saw some teams struggle in the past on i.e. Hard tyre and excel at, let say, Medium. If we now strip this knowledge from the viewers, they wouldn't know what to expect (or they would expect "team A" to struggle on "primes" based on past events but now "prime" is a different compound). I know and agree that fans will probably check the types but most viewers won't do it. This could led to confusion IMO. But I see your point and I am not saying it is completely invalid .

If the hard tyre in one race becomes the soft in the next, this could lead to more confusion then we seem to have now, and they would have to produce specific batches(would they not?)

(race with soft and medium, the medium is the 'hard'. Race with medium and hard, that same tyre is then the soft??)

I get your point. I think it is valid, but I'd question how important that info is. For the here-and-now situation of a race, I think I'd rather just know whether they're on the soft or hard. Knowing how that info relates to other races is secondary in my opinion. Additionally, a 'hard' in Canada might behave identically to a 'medium' in Valencia (random races chosen!)

Bridgestone had the right setup, in my extremely humble opinion.

Yeah I don't really care if the compound is soft or super soft or medium or whatever, just if it's the softer of the two compounds available. Besides, it's frequently explained during race weekends which two compounds will be available.

I don't mind that Pirelli are changing the tyres again and that the teams will have to adapt and that it will add a dimension to the racing and the sport. However, I hope they are more predictable. One of the things I like about the sport is being able to analyse the different teams' performance and make predictions based on my analysis. The Pirelli tyres last year created such a lottery and the level of unpredictability in the races detracted from my enjoyment. That's obviously my personal position on it, though.

I get your point. I think it is valid, but I'd question how important that info is. For the here-and-now situation of a race, I think I'd rather just know whether they're on the soft or hard. Knowing how that info relates to other races is secondary in my opinion. Additionally, a 'hard' in Canada might behave identically to a 'medium' in Valencia (random races chosen!)

Bridgestone had the right setup, in my extremely humble opinion.

Because Formula One is about the presentation of data and hard numbers. If I look at red tires, I know they are super softs and their operating range is from 95 to 105 Celsius. Some of us want to actually know what's going on, not just get an approximation. We could extend that logic further and when qualifying, we don't need to know if Hamilton got the pole by a margin of 0.510 seconds, let's just say, "he was quicker". How much? Oh, you don't need to know, just accept that he was quicker. Or how many laps remaining? Don't worry about numbers and hard facts, it will be over soon.

And the flags, just too many colors, let's dumb it down to just two flag colors, green for it's OK, and yellow for slow down. All those black, blue, or funny yellow with the red stripes just are too hard to remember.

I hate tyre management races, for obvious reasons. It just sucks seeing drivers that have a more aggressive style be punished severely, I heard a driver say that if you push as hard as you can for 1 lap your tyres are ruined. Hopefully 2013 resolves this, but I doubt it.

I get your point. I think it is valid, but I'd question how important that info is. For the here-and-now situation of a race, I think I'd rather just know whether they're on the soft or hard. Knowing how that info relates to other races is secondary in my opinion. Additionally, a 'hard' in Canada might behave identically to a 'medium' in Valencia (random races chosen!)

Bridgestone had the right setup, in my extremely humble opinion.

Because Formula One is about the presentation of data and hard numbers. If I look at red tires, I know they are super softs and their operating range is from 95 to 105 Celsius. Some of us want to actually know what's going on, not just get an approximation. We could extend that logic further and when qualifying, we don't need to know if Hamilton got the pole by a margin of 0.510 seconds, let's just say, "he was quicker". How much? Oh, you don't need to know, just accept that he was quicker. Or how many laps remaining? Don't worry about numbers and hard facts, it will be over soon.

And the flags, just too many colors, let's dumb it down to just two flag colors, green for it's OK, and yellow for slow down. All those black, blue, or funny yellow with the red stripes just are too hard to remember.

Firstly, even though I don't share your optimism, I would be a very happy little boy if we get to Oz and Lewis gets pole in the Merc by 0.510 seconds.

I get what you're saying; as an F1 fan I too ponder a little tumescence at all that data. But are you really suggesting that, without a red stipe on the side of the tyre, someone as fascinated by data as you clearly are would be oblivious to its compound or operating temperature? With the deeper knowledge of the technical aspects that you display in your post, I'd imagine your intellectual level might extend beyond colour demarcation...

I love the technical nature of F1, but sometimes I feel certain things are overcompliced. The colouring of the sidewalls, for me, shouldn't be there to denote all those finer details you mentioned, it should only specify which of the two available tyres each driver is on at a given moment. Aside from wet races, tyres are a binary situation.

You've been quite clever and funny with your flag and laptime suggestions, but really they're a little bit silly. Wikipedia tells me there are nine available flags in F1. If, as is the case with Pirelli's tyres, only two of all the available flags could be brought to each race, then I'd support your suggestion of two flag colours.

I get your point. I think it is valid, but I'd question how important that info is. For the here-and-now situation of a race, I think I'd rather just know whether they're on the soft or hard. Knowing how that info relates to other races is secondary in my opinion. Additionally, a 'hard' in Canada might behave identically to a 'medium' in Valencia (random races chosen!)

Bridgestone had the right setup, in my extremely humble opinion.

Because Formula One is about the presentation of data and hard numbers. If I look at red tires, I know they are super softs and their operating range is from 95 to 105 Celsius. Some of us want to actually know what's going on, not just get an approximation. We could extend that logic further and when qualifying, we don't need to know if Hamilton got the pole by a margin of 0.510 seconds, let's just say, "he was quicker". How much? Oh, you don't need to know, just accept that he was quicker. Or how many laps remaining? Don't worry about numbers and hard facts, it will be over soon.

And the flags, just too many colors, let's dumb it down to just two flag colors, green for it's OK, and yellow for slow down. All those black, blue, or funny yellow with the red stripes just are too hard to remember.

Firstly, even though I don't share your optimism, I would be a very happy little boy if we get to Oz and Lewis gets pole in the Merc by 0.510 seconds.

I get what you're saying; as an F1 fan I too ponder a little tumescence at all that data. But are you really suggesting that, without a red stipe on the side of the tyre, someone as fascinated by data as you clearly are would be oblivious to its compound or operating temperature? With the deeper knowledge of the technical aspects that you display in your post, I'd imagine your intellectual level might extend beyond colour demarcation...

I love the technical nature of F1, but sometimes I feel certain things are overcompliced. The colouring of the sidewalls, for me, shouldn't be there to denote all those finer details you mentioned, it should only specify which of the two available tyres each driver is on at a given moment. Aside from wet races, tyres are a binary situation.

You've been quite clever and funny with your flag and laptime suggestions, but really they're a little bit silly. Wikipedia tells me there are nine available flags in F1. If, as is the case with Pirelli's tyres, only two of all the available flags could be brought to each race, then I'd support your suggestion of two flag colours.

fieldstvl, I apologize for the harsh sarcasm, you deserve better. But somehow this suggestion rubs me the wrong way, and I get all prickly. Let's agree we disagree, I've said my bit.

Whats the big deal. We have 6 distinct colours for 6 different tyres. This is how it should be. No 2 shades which could be confusing. Does not matter which colour is given to which Tyre.

And as far using different colours for each compound, as an enthusiastic fan of F1, I prefer this. I prefer having as much information as possible. The casual fan wont care one way or other. For them tyre is tyre. I dont want it dumbed down to just hard and soft keeping me in dark about what compound is actually being used by the manufacturer like in bridgestone days.

Last season white and silver was hard to differentiate and they fixed that. That is all that matters.

am i the only one who could easily tell the difference between the hard and medium last year? don't get me wrong, more distinct colours is a better idea, but it wasn't the nightmare everyone is making it sound.

They say the Soft has a higher working range, and the Medium a low working range.

So what does that mean, the Medium will heat up faster but last longer, and the Soft will be more difficult to heat up yet will have more grip at all times and won't last as long?

Then there's the difference between wear and degradation which this article doesn't get into.

It seems counter-intuitive, usually I assume that softer means it will heat up faster and work better in cooler conditions. Well, it will make it more complicated and interesting, even if harder to understand.

They say the Soft has a higher working range, and the Medium a low working range.

So what does that mean, the Medium will heat up faster but last longer, and the Soft will be more difficult to heat up yet will have more grip at all times and won't last as long?

Then there's the difference between wear and degradation which this article doesn't get into.

It seems counter-intuitive, usually I assume that softer means it will heat up faster and work better in cooler conditions. Well, it will make it more complicated and interesting, even if harder to understand.

What that means is that (and I'm just picking numbers randomly) is that the super softs would have an operating range between 95 and 105 Celsius, soft 105 to 115, medium 115 to 125, and hard 125 to 135.

That's why a car or driver could get one compound to work properly, but (as said countless times in interviews) could not get the other compound up to temperature or overheated. That's why these adjustable brake ducts are being used, to allow more or less air through the brakes. The wheels and brakes are designed so that heat transfers from the brakes to the wheel, and obviously, if you have the brakes running hotter, the tire compound will run hotter.

McLaren started it with their rear brakes, then both front and rear brakes.On the left picture is the older version of the rear brakes and ducts, and on the right the ones used to tune the temperatures. The silver "shutter" is opened and closed, controlled by a tiny hydraulic ram. One the picture below (where the shrouding has been removed) the ram can be seen, it's sticking in front of and across the brake disk.Hydraulic lines feed back to a device located behind the driver, and a mechanic can alter the ducts during a pit stop. When wheels are being changed during pit stops and they are switching from one compound to another, the mechanic can also alter the opening of the brake ducts. On the picture below, you can see a mechanic reaching in just behind the driver to make that change.

idiots, for me the best races were at the end of the year when the tryes were degrading less, and I think usa was the best race of the entire year which happened to be the race they accidently used harder compounds than usual.